GeForce 410M vs Radeon 520

Place in performance ranking	841	1145
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.72	0.01
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Oland	N12M-GS
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	21 March 2017 (7 years ago)	6 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Current price	$140	$163

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Radeon 520 has 17100% better value for money than GeForce 410M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	320	48
CUDA cores	no data	48
Core clock speed	1030 MHz	575 MHz
Number of transistors	1,040 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	20.60	4.600
Floating-point performance	659.2 gflops	110.4 gflops
Gigaflops	no data	73

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon 520 and GeForce 410M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	DDR3, GDDR5	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	Up to 512 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	2250 MHz	Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth	16 GB/s	12.8 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA	DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management

no data

8.0

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12.0	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.0	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	+
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	no data	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Radeon 520 2.04
+204%

GeForce 410M 0.67

Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce 410M by 204% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Radeon 520 787
+206%

GeForce 410M 257

Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce 410M by 206% in Passmark.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Radeon 520 2017
+386%

GeForce 410M 415

Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce 410M by 386% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Radeon 520 5266
+174%

GeForce 410M 1923

Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce 410M by 174% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

Radeon 520 5313
+417%

GeForce 410M 1027

Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce 410M by 417% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD

16
+100%

−100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5	no data
Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	no data
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6	no data
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Hitman 3	4−5	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18	no data
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16	no data

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5	no data
Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	no data
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6	no data
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Hitman 3	4−5	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18	no data
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11	no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16	no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5	no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	no data
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18	no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11	no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16	no data

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+300%

1−2

−300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	no data
Far Cry 5	3−4	no data
Forza Horizon 4	2−3	0−1
Hitman 3	7−8	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7	no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

no data

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn	1−2	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3	no data

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3	no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3	no data
Metro Exodus	4−5	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1